INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for
a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 3, 2003, in the Council Chamber
of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results:
Council Members COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS and JOHN were
present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department
Heads were also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of February 17, 2003, were
approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Loveless and a second by
Mr. Janku.

APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA
The agenda, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously
on a motion made by Mayor Hindman and a second by Mr. Loveless.

SPECIAL ITEMS
Mayor Hindman welcomed Boy Scout Troop 706 from St. Andrews
Lutheran Church and their Scout Master, Bill Kennedy.

Mayor Hindman, on behalf of the entire Council, expressed
sympathy to the family of Muriel Battle who passed away yesterday. He noted
the tremendous impact she made on the City of Columbia.
In addition to being a great community leader, Mr. Beck said
that Dr. Battle was a great volunteer for the City of Columbia and that she had
assisted in the hiring process for several department heads.

SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

PUBLIC HEARINGSB49-03Authorizing the sale of surplus
land located in Indian Hills Subdivision.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the Council had declared this property
surplus and asked to have restrictions placed on it prior to the sale of such.
He noted that a letter had been received conveying concern about a couple of
the restrictions.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Wallace Malveaux, 4808 Aztec, spoke on behalf of the neighborhood.
He asked that the process be slowed down to give the neighborhood more time to
talk with the Habitat group. He indicated that residents are not opposed to Habitat
homes, but wanted to be included in the process.
Mr. Hutton asked Mr. Malveaux if he had any concerns about
the restrictions. Mr. Malveaux spoke of his preference for brick on the homes
and an increase in the square footage by a couple hundred feet.
Priscilla Bevins, 2904 Oaklawn, spoke on behalf of Habitat
for Humanity. She pointed out that Habitat first asked about the availability
of the lots in 1997. She remarked there has been a lot of time for everyone to
talk about the issues. Ms. Bevins stated Habitat has made many efforts to meet
with the residents and talk about the problems, but to no avail. She believed
the existing covenants require houses to be at least 1,000 square feet. The homes
Habitat builds are larger than that. Ms. Bevins thought the houses they have
built in the neighborhood have been positive additions. She commented that they
have no problem with the first three restrictions, but felt the 25-year owner
occupied stipulation would be a real disservice to whomever would buy the lots.
Ms. Bevins asked the Council to delete this provision.
Mr. Hutton asked what size house Habitat is proposing to build.
Ms. Bevins replied that their three bedroom homes are 1,066 feet and the four
bedroom homes are larger. She explained that they build their houses to fit the
size of the family. Mr. Hutton inquired if someone has to sell the house after
a few years, whether Habitat buys them back. He was aware the home owner would
have to pay back the equity. Ms. Bevins said that was correct and added that
there is a second mortgage which is the difference in value between the appraised
value and what Habitat's cost was. She said they sell to the family at their
cost and they need to be able to pay the second mortgage. She imagined there
could be circumstances where Habitat would buy the house back, but usually the
houses have been sold on the open market. Mr. Hutton asked about a five year
covenant on the home ownership. Ms. Bevins responded it would be better, but
the other lots were all sold without that kind of requirement. She thought it
would be more equitable to eliminate this stipulation altogether. Ms. Bevins
noted that Habitat completed their first house in 1988 and up until this year
only one house had been sold.
Ms. Crayton believed the neighbors would welcome Habitat families,
but residents wanted to be included in the plans. Ms. Bevins replied that Habitat
wants to be forthcoming about their projects, but their many overtures spanning
the past five years have gone without reply.
Mr. Janku asked if brick fronts are in the plans for these
houses. Ms. Bevins said brick is not a standard, but would not say they would
never do it. She also said she could not make any promises.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Hutton pointed out that anyone in the community could
bid on these lots. There would be no advantages. He noted that this process is
far from a rush to sell as it has been ongoing for at least 18 months. Regarding
the size of the homes, Mr. Hutton said he would be more comfortable with 1,100
square feet. He thought the 25-year owner occupied stipulation to be excessive
and suggested that it be five years.
Mr. Hutton made the motion that B49-03 be amended to read
1,100 square feet and five years owner occupied covenant. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. John reiterated that the lots will be sold on the open
market. He explained the Council is trying to ensure protection of the neighborhood.
Mr. Janku noted that if the owner occupied covenant was not
in place, there might be people who would buy the lots for rental property.
Mr. Loveless questioned if a person sold a house after three
years to someone who then subsequently buys the property for rental purposes,
what enforcement the City would have of the five year home ownership stipulation
in the covenant. Mr. Boeckmann replied that staff would have to rely on neighbors
complaints. He indicated the City does not have a mechanism to track the sale
of property and how it is used. He said there is no easy way to enforce such
-- it would be a civil case. Mr. Loveless asked if there was any way to flag
these particular lots through Protective Inspection. Under the current system
of manual tracking, Mr. Patterson said it would be practically impossible. He
added that staff would not know the home was being used for rental property unless
the owner went through Protective Inspection or if there was a complaint by someone
in the neighborhood. Mayor Hindman noted that the lender would probably be very
interested in knowing about any covenants. Mr. Hutton assumed that the person
examining the title would point out the covenants. Mr. John said it would be
part of the information reviewed at the closing.
B49-03, as amended, was given third reading with the vote
recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS,
JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B54-03Levying special assessments
against property in the Grasslands Addition to pay part of the cost of
acquiring open space and park land.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the property within the benefit district
will be tax billed for the cost of the recently purchased land by the City. Each
parcel will be assessed the same amount ($2,173.91). He explained that the City
purchased the land for $680,000 with the total amount to be raised by tax bill
being $400,000. Mr. Beck indicated that $150,000 was collected earlier and he
understood there is an ongoing campaign to raise the remaining monies so the
tract would remain as parkland.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Dan Reuther, 811 Sycamore, spoke on behalf of the Grasslands
Development Company (GDC), the former owner of the tract now being discussed.
He said GDC is opposed to the special assessment against their property. He noted
that the neighborhood association did not provide an avenue for participation
in the process. Mr. Reuther maintained the association only contacts residents
and not property owners within the association. He indicated that GDC is, by
far, the largest owner of the property within the district. Mr. Reuther believed
the whole process was taxation without representation or participation and that
their due process was somewhat circumvented. He read from the association bylaws.
The Grasslands Development Company also questioned how the proposed assessment
would equally benefit every owner within the neighborhood.
Mr. Hutton asked how many parcels the development company
will be tax billed for. Mr. Reuther responded that GDC owns ten lots.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. John noted that the neighborhood association did not approve
or pass the establishment of the district -- it was established by the City of
Columbia. He related that there was no action by the association nor do they
have any authority to levy tax bills against the rest of the neighborhood. Mr.
John pointed out that most of GDC's lots are closest to the park and would have
the most direct benefit from the district.
B54-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B55-03Voluntary annexation of property
located east of Creasy Springs Road and north of the present city limits;
establishing permanent R-1 zoning.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that the R-1 request on this 22 acre tract
had been recommended for approval by both the staff and the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B55-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B57-03Rezoning property located generally
north of Brown School Road, extended and east of State Route 763.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck indicated there are multiple zoning requests for
this 50 acre tract.
Mr. Dudark noted that the ordinance before the Council shows
Tract B as a PUD-14. The applicant has now asked to amend the request to a PUD-12
zone. Mr. Dudark said the ordinance will need to be amended to conform with the
applicant's revised request and there will also need to be a revised statement
of intent submitted for the tract.
Mr. Janku asked about the connection on Brown School Road.
Mr. Beck understood the issues relating to the connection on 763 were close to
being worked out. In regard to Oakland Gravel Road, there are still several questions
yet to be addressed as this project is a joint effort between the developer,
the County Commission, the City and MoDOT. Mr. Beck stated they still need to
work out the alignment for the approach onto US 63 north of Columbia. Mr. Janku
wondered if the City was going to take the lead in getting the parties together.
Mr. Patterson explained one of the complications to be that
the project is not within the City limits so we do not have legal jurisdiction
over the site. Therefore, an intergovernmental agreement of some type is essential
in order to make proper conveyances of property rights so the project can proceed.
Mr. Patterson understood that easement agreements have been reached with the
County, but the last he heard was they had not been executed. He explained before
the project can proceed, the City will have to obtain the inner-agency agreements,
rights-of-way and permits from MoDOT. In addition, funding for the project will
have to be in place. Mr. Patterson indicated that the City's allocated funding
is not even half as much as what the project is estimated to cost at this point.
With regard to 763, Mr. Patterson reported the agreement on
that side is simply there is right-of-way within the City that is off the development
property which will be acquired after Council approval. The developer will then
construct the improvements. As part of the agreement, Mr. Patterson said they
were given a tentative go ahead on assuming responsibility for constructing sidewalks
in lieu of our participation in the cost of the street. In none of these cases
will the City reimburse the developer for any expenditures because we cannot
do that by law. Mr. Janku hoped they could pick out the most important parts
of the project, in terms of funding, and move forward with this work and then
phase in the other parts at a later date.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Rob Wolverton, 2106 Clemmons, a partner in WWB Development
Company, developer of this project, offered to answer any questions.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Janku made the motion that they substitute the applicants
request for Exhibit A and change the zoning on Tract B from PUD-14 to PUD-12.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku noted that the developer worked with the City to
identify property for a City park which will be adjacent to this subdivision.
He was appreciative the City was involved early on in the planning process. Mr.
Janku spoke of his preference for this type of PUD in that real amenities are
included as part of the development.
B57-03, as amended, was given third reading with the vote
recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS,
JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B58-03Rezoning property located on
the southwest corner of Locust Street and Waugh Street from R-3 to C-P.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck referred to a letter the Council received from Bob
Smith that was discussed at the last meeting pertaining to churches renting out
spaces in their parking lots during the week. The applicant in this rezoning
request, Sacred Heart Church, has asked that the item be tabled until such time
the Council acts on the communication from Mr. Smith.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Hutton made the motion that B58-03 be tabled to the June
2, 2003, Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved
unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman continued the public hearing to the June 2,
2003, meeting.

B63-03Calling for bids for the installation
of landscaping at the parking lot located at the northeast corner of
Tenth and Elm Streets.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Prior to the construction of the Tenth and Cherry parking
garage, Mr. Beck said the City purchased this surface lot at Tenth and Elm Street.
He said the lot is metered and is used quite a bit. The Council requested that
it be landscaped. The plan prepared by staff consists of seven trees and 100
shrubs at an estimated cost of $22,178 to be paid from the parking utility fund.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B63-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B65-03Authorizing construction of
water main serving Timberlane Subdivision, Plat 5; authorizing payment
of differential costs.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this fairly small project will consist
of 475 feet of eight inch line. The City will pay the differential cost between
a six and eight inch line. The estimated cost to be paid out of Water and Light
funds is $2,000.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B65-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B70-03Authorizing acquisition of land
at the intersection of Hillsdale Road and I-70 Drive Southeast for construction
of a water utility pump station and reservoir.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Malon showed the location on the overhead as being substantially
east of Highway 63. He pointed out a metal building across the road from the
proposed site which is used as a gymnasium. Mr. Malon reported the proposed tract
is in an ideal hydrological location due to its elevation. He explained there
are no drawings of what the pump station might look like because the City has
not yet acquired the property. He displayed photos of the south pump station
and indicated the proposed facility will be similar but on a smaller scale because
no lab work will occur at this installation. Mr. Malon noted that at this point
staff is not proposing the construction of a reservoir, just the pump station.
However, there is enough space for a ground level reservoir. He reported that
it is staff's recommendation that the City purchase the property and appropriate
funds for the purchase. In regard to the appropriation of funds, he suggested
a resolution for refunding so that any future financing associated with the Northeast
Booster District would also include the ability to refund that purchase price
back to the operating fund.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B70-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

(A)Voluntary annexation of property
located on the west side of State Route 763, approximately 1,000 feet
south of Brown School Road.
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the applicant is requesting annexation
of this 9.06 acre tract in order to connect to the City's sewer system. The property
owner has asked that permanent R-1 and C-3 zoning be established at the time
of annexation.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

OLD BUSINESSB30-03Establishing Sanitary Sewer District
No. 150 along Mexico Gravel Road, adjacent to the intersection of Mexico
Gravel Road and State Route PP.
The bill was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this issue had been tabled at the
request of the Council for additional information.
Mr. Patterson showed the boundaries of the District and explained
that staff subsequently met with several of the property owners. He could not
say that everyone was in full agreement with the Sewer District, but thought
staff accomplished quite a bit in answering questions and making sure there was
an understanding of the process and what the impact would be on the property
owners. The proposed District would consist of ten parcels of property, four
of which are partially in the City. Since the City has no taxing authority beyond
the city limits, Mr. Patterson related that only those portions within the City
have been included in the District.
Mr. Patterson reported staff has calculated the cost of the
District to be approximately $200,000. He reviewed how the tax bill assessments
would be imposed based on the square footage of the property inside the city.
By ordinance, undeveloped properties and developed residential properties have
an initial tax bill cap of $5,000. Mr. Patterson pointed out that two tracts
within the proposed District are undeveloped. He said that only one of the properties
would be under the $5,000 cap. He indicated that approximately $150,000 will
be deferred and carried by the sewer utility until the mechanisms established
by ordinance trigger the issuance of the deferred tax bills. Mr. Patterson noted
there are no liens as a result of the deferred tax bills until assessment occurs.
However, there is a notice of deferred tax bill filed in the Recorder's Office
for the purpose of advising a prospective purchaser that under the conditions
listed in the notice a tax bill will be issued.
In regard for the request of an alternative alignment which
would place the sewer line in front of some properties along Mexico Gravel Road,
Mr. Patterson showed the cost of this alternative being approximately $20,000
more in construction costs. This alignment will not substantially shorten the
length of the line necessary to serve all of the properties in the District.
In addition, the line would run 20-28 feet deep in some places. Staff also believes
this alignment would be more disruptive to the properties in that driveways will
have to be torn up as part of the project, and there will be more damage to vegetation
and trees in the area.
In reference to the issue of requiring tracts that are partially
outside the city to be annexed in order to have access to the proposed sewer
line, Mr. Patterson pointed to four tracts outlined on the overhead, one having
a significant portion outside the city. The property owner of the large tract,
Mr. Smarr, has indicated that he is willing to include his property within the
city limits as part of the District, but he will not participate if forced to
have the remainder of his property annexed. Mr. Patterson stated that if Mr.
Smarr's tract is removed from the District, and not that there are any assurances
that the other three property owners would agree to the same annexation requirement,
the District would have a configuration smaller in area, but this will result
in increased deferred tax bills against the remaining properties. He said this
substantial increase would probably influence the willingness to be included
in the Sewer District if annexation is required. The same cost would be distributed
over a smaller area.
In discussions with property owners other questions came up
such as service areas. Mr. Patterson showed the areas that could be served by
gravity. One affected three of the tracts and showed that gravity sewer flow
to be questionable. He said it would depend on the development, but more than
likely a pump station and force mains would be required. Mr. Patterson explained
the reason topographic lines are not used for the establishment of sewer districts
is because they are very subjective in a lot of areas. He indicated the tracking
of property lines is much more feasible from the standpoint of administration.
Mr. Patterson pointed out a cemetery in the proximity of the
sewer line and noted that staff is proceeding with an archeological survey to
make assurances that no unmarked grave sites are in alignment with the proposed
project.
Mr. Patterson outlined the options available as follows: 1)
passing the ordinance as originally proposed; or 2) direct staff to revise boundaries
of the District and require all parcels of the land to be annexed into the city
before the District is formed, or 3) defeat the ordinance and delay construction
indefinitely. If annexation is a requirement the Council opts for, Mr. Patterson
reported the property owners will have the opportunity to reconsider their participation
because the City cannot force annexation, and it will be very difficult to levy
assessments on properties without connection to the sewer line.
In regard to the properties partially within the City, Mr.
John asked if he understood correctly that only the portion in the city would
be included in the District. Mr. Patterson said that was correct. He noted that
only one of the four is really a potential development with a connection of any
size. If the remainder of this tract is developed, it could not be connected
to the sewer line unless it is annexed or the property owner enters into an annexation
agreement. Furthermore, the property would be required to develop to our standards
and they would also have to bear the expense of extending the sewer line. He
said there would be no District assistance provided.
Mr. Hutton noted that Mr. Smarr has voluntarily agreed to
be part of the District even though he will not connect to the sewer. The property
he owns in the City is not developed and will not be connected to the line.
Lucinda Dunn, 4401 Mexico Gravel, expressed support for the
project as an adequate sewage system is very important to her family's needs.
A. R. Taylor, 4415 Mexico Gravel, also spoke in support of
the project. He said his present system is no longer adequate.
Mr. Hutton believed at least seven of the property owners
in the audience were present at the meeting held by Mr. Patterson. He said these
residents may not be adamantly in support of the District, but they realize it
is necessary. Mr. Hutton thought their questions had been answered and the details
had been worked out to their satisfaction. He was hopeful the Council would agree
with the annexation issue and he saw it as a fairly good compromise.
Mr. Janku was in support of the District as proposed and said
he appreciated the additional information about the annexation of the property.
Mr. Loveless asked about the cap on the total funds that can
be deferred under City policy. Mr. Patterson responded the amount is very close
to $400,000 for either deferred or obligated monies as part of the sewer districts
already brought forward. The cap is $500,000. He said when that cap is met, the
Council will have to review the sewer utility financial statement to determine
whether this can be increased.
B30-03 was read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO
ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B51-03 Amending Chapter 2 of the Code relating
to the Substance Abuse Advisory Commission.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Steinhaus explained that for the last few years the Commission
has had a hard time recruiting for the youth member position. The suggestion
is to change the ordinance to read that one member shall be a student under the
age of 25.
B51-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B52-03Amending Chapter 15 of the City
Code as it relates to associate municipal judges.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained this would provide for three municipal
judges with terms not to exceed four years. The goal is to address the problem
of having associate municipal judges available at all times.
In addition to modifying the ordinance, Mr. Boeckmann pointed
out that there is also a suggested Council action to direct staff to initiate
the appointment of additional judges.
Mr. Janku agreed that three would be desirable, but wondered
whether it should be mandatory (changing the word "shall" to "may"). Mr. Boeckmann
thought the current wording would require staff to notify the Council when the
number fell below three.
B52-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
Mr. Hutton made the motion that staff be directed to initiate
the process for appointing additional judges. The motion was seconded by Mr.
John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B59-03Approving the Auburn Hills 5
PUD Site Plan.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Dudark explained Tract F to consist of 18 acres. The plan
is for 21 single family homes and 38 two family structures, bringing the total
unit count to 97 or about 7 units per acre. He pointed out one of the features
of the plan is some traffic calming at an intersection. Mr. Dudark said a continuous
street would be extended for future development north of the tract. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of the PUD. Mr. Dudark noted that a final plat
will be required before any development can occur in this area.
Mr. Janku asked about access to the greenbelt area. Mr. Dudark
pointed out a pedestrian easement and street access on the overhead.
Rob Wolverton, 2106 Clemmons, one of the partners in the project,
offered to answer any questions.
B59-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B60-03Approving the Limerick Lakes
East PUD Site Plan.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Dudark pointed out that this request had been before the
Council in November of last year. He said the request has been modified to eliminate
the tier lots. The new plan shows both lots having frontage on a public street;
however, they will share a driveway which comes out onto Katy Lane. The driveway
has been moved eight feet farther to the west so it is now 93 feet from the curb
line of Forum and about 63 feet from the right-of-way line of Forum. Mr. Dudark
indicated it is well within the minimum standard for residential driveways from
street intersections. The Planning and Zoning Commission held another hearing
on this revised plan and voted 4 to 3 to recommend approval of the PUD Site Plan
before the Council.
Mr. Coffman asked about the additional provisions dealing
with landscaping and preservation of trees. Mr. Dudark noted the applicant has
shown landscaping between the driveway and the lake. He said they have also identified
buildable areas for the footprint of the houses and the areas surrounding such
will be undisturbed. He believed this was better defined than last time. Mr.
Coffman asked about tree disturbance. Mr. Dudark explained that a plot plan will
have to be submitted when applying for a building permit, and the applicant would
be required to follow within the identified area.
Even though this is an obsolete zoning classification, Mr.
Hutton assumed it was still appropriate. Because it is in essence a PUD-1, he
asked if the applicant would be entitled to develop five lots. Mr. Dudark did
not believe this could occur without Council action. Mr. Hutton understood there
to be a question about the property being rezoned to R-1 a few years ago and
the City assigning a PUD-1 zoning to it. Mr. Dudark said there had been some
discussion of that and staff suggested that the applicant continue with the PUD
process as it is a bit more precise than just open R-1 zoning. He clarified it
is still a PUD zoning, but the City does not have a PUD R-1 anymore. Under the
PUD ordinance, Mr. Hutton inquired whether a site plan would have to be approved.
Mr. Dudark said that was correct.
Paul Kanago, 309 W. Alhambra, explained that the line of sight
would dramatically improve on the corner as the driveway is constructed and the
trees are cleared at Katy Lane and Forum. He noted it currently is virtually
a blind corner. With the split driveway configuration, there would be no reason
for anyone to back out of the driveway onto Katy Lane. The driveway will be 20-feet
wide and six-inches thick per Fire Department standards. Mr. Kanago noted that
the Fire Department signed off on the two, twelve foot driveways with prohibited
parking.
Mr. Kanago identified the right-of-way in the plan would accommodate
the future widening of Forum Boulevard -- up to four lanes of traffic plus a
turn lane, a pedway and an estimated 15 feet of unused right-of-way on each side.
He thought it was questionable whether this intersection would ever require a
middle turning lane if Forum is widened to four lanes. Mr. Kanago remarked that
the 10-foot pedway would be constructed in lieu of a five-foot sidewalk. The
City's responsibility would be the cost of constructing over and above what it
would cost to construct a five-foot sidewalk. He offered to work with the City
to allow for their preferences as to design and placement of the pedway.
Mr. Kanago reported that tree removal of the mature forest
will be less than 35%, which is less than one-half of the tree removal allowed
by City standards of the 75% maximum. He noted that the mature forest makes up
only 60% of the acreage, so the overall tree removal on this 4.96 acres is estimated
to be less than 25%. Mr. Kanago reported that he walked the site with the City
Arborist who commented that his home site selection on lot one would be non-invasive
to the mature forest. The staff report reflects approval by the City Arborist.
Mr. Kanago believed the plan to be a very reasonable use of
this land with the density being 0.4 houses per acre wherein the maximum density
on this PUD could be as high as 29 houses. In this case, the request is for two
homes. He noted the grade of the land on the west side of the lake, the current
location of 10 homes, is much more severe than the grade of the land on the east
side of the lake where he proposes to build two houses. He reported it is virtually
on the same size property. Mr. Kanago spoke about the distance of his driveway
on Katy Lane from Forum Boulevard and any driver would have more than ample time
to slow and make the turn at a controlled speed.
Mr. Kanago remarked that the impervious areas in his plan
consists of less than 12½% of the acreage, and the peak runoff for the
ten year rainfall will be increased by less than 6% for the total 4.96 acres.
When considering the entire watershed, he said the increased runoff is insignificant,
being less than two-tenths of one percent of the total ten year runoff.
In conclusion, Mr. Kanago asked the Council to consider that
this land has been zoned residential for the past 23 years, that the City staff
have approved his plan twice, two different traffic engineers have given their
approval to the plan, the City Arborist has given his approval, and Planning
and Zoning have given their approval. He remarked that he came before the Council
before, listened to their concerns and then made the changes for which they asked.
Mr. Hutton asked Mr. Kanago if he intends to run his business
out of his home. Mr. Kanago replied that he intends to put a home office in his
house, but added that his business office is located across the street. His current
plan is to leave his business right where it is. Mr. Kanago indicated that was
not to say he would never meet with a client in his home. Mr. Hutton understood
that he did not intend to run his daily business out of his house. Mr. Kanago
responded that he did not.
Ken Wilhelm, 2408 Waterside, spoke in opposition to the plan.
He reiterated the concerns residents had in regard to safety and they contend
that this site, given its characteristics, cannot be matched by another site
where the minimum standards would apply. He asked the people in opposition to
the plan to stand. Approximately 30 people stood.
Duane Burkhardt, 2508 Waterside, reported on the number of
accidents that have occurred within the past twelve months at this intersection.
He recently spoke to a former traffic engineer who had said this project would
not present a significant traffic impact. When Mr. Burkhardt asked him why he
would say that, the former employee said he was referring to adding two homes
to the neighborhood. He did not remember a discussion about where the homes would
be. Mr. Burkhardt agreed that adding two homes to the neighborhood would be negligible,
but he said this was not a question of adding two homes, but adding two homes
at this particular location.
Mr. Loveless asked if two homes would not make a difference
to the neighborhood, he wondered why this particular configuration represents
such a concern to the neighbors. Mr. Burkhardt said if a car makes a right turn
off of Forum onto Katy and someone is pulling out of the driveway on the applicant's
property, the car turning off of Forum will have to slow down, as will the car
behind it, and the one behind that one and so on. The problem occurs when someone
is not paying attention and runs into the car in front of them.
When talking about turn lanes in other instances, Mr. Loveless
said they usually speak about stacking distances for cars at intersections. In
this case, he said there will be about a distance of 93 feet from the curb line
to the centerline of the 20 foot driveway. This computes to almost 85 feet between
the curb of Forum and where a car would be coming out of the driveway. Mr. Loveless
asked if that was not enough stacking distance for someone to turn off of Forum
and still stop when they see a car coming out of the driveway. Mr. Burkhardt
responded he did not have a traffic study to point to in order to demonstrate
that kind of a situation. He said a turn lane would mitigate the situation.
Maura Burkhardt, 2508 Waterside, compared the new and old
Kanago site plans. She said it was obvious that no consequential changes have
been made. She was concerned about the two houses sharing one driveway and believed
it would have all the problems of a stem lot.
Robert Cunningham, 2504 Waterside, displayed illustrations
describing the grade alteration for a driveway versus the alteration required
for a fire lane, assuming a fire lane is 20 feet wide and also assuming that
no retaining walls are being used. His concern was that the tree cover would
be devastated from Forum to the lake.
Dave Rodert, 2404 Waterside, President of the Limerick Lakes
Homeowners Association, said he did not know anything about traffic or setback
standards in other cities, but he could testify about the traffic that enters
and exits the neighborhood at Forum and Katy. Mr. Rodert remarked that the City's
traffic engineer acknowledges that the neighbors who experience traffic on a
daily basis are the best resource for problem identification. He explained that
the neighborhood views the current intersection as a dangerous one and that over
the years many neighbors have called both Police and Public Works regarding the
traffic situation. He said residents are not asking for the taking of property,
but that the risk be reduced by one-half by allowing only one home site. Mr.
Rodert commented that he had been told a study has never been done regarding
the impact of allowing a private drive that close to Forum. He related that no
one has taken into consideration the possibility of two dwellings with home-based
businesses which could potentially create 72 in and out movements in one day.
He asked that the Council deny this plan and then encourage Mr. Kanago to work
with the neighborhood on submitting a single home plan.
Rebecca Johnson, 1904 Katy, spoke in opposition to the plan
because of her concern about creating the long driveway and the problems with
ingress and egress.
Paul Miller, 1909 Walden, spoke in opposition because of safety
concerns. He noted that people use Katy Lane as a shortcut to avoid the light
at Chapel Hill.
Joann Rodert, 2404 Waterside, disagreed with what the Kanago's
are trying to do with their land. She said the new plan is a reconfiguration
of the old plan to escape the stem lot issue.
Judy Mumford, 2412 Waterside, spoke in opposition because
of safety issues.
Billie Cunningham, 2504 Waterside, read from the Zoning Ordinance,
Section 29-10(c)(2) which stipulates that a PUD "may" be approved provided that
all the provisions of this section are complied with, but approval is not mandatory
and the PUD is not a use of right. She said the assumption that Mr. Kanago has
the right to do what he wants to do, regardless of the ensuing cost to the existing
neighborhood, contradicts that section. By approving this PUD, Ms. Cunningham
stated that one individual will gain at the expense of an entire neighborhood.
She reminded the Council that approval of the PUD is not mandatory.
Bo Ruffner, 1815 Katy, said he was troubled by the home office
issue. He asked the Council to deny the PUD on the merits of safety.
Nancy Girardi, 2408 Waterside, spoke in opposition to the
plan.
Mr. Loveless asked about the stacking distance for the turn
lane at the entrance off of Broadway into the Hy-Vee lot. Mr. Patterson said
he did not remember the distance, but Hy-Vee was granted a right in/right out
access at that location for a very high commercial activity. He pointed out the
traffic stacking from Broadway on Fairview to the entrance was not an issue because
it was right in/right out. Mr. Loveless said if one is proceeding eastbound and
turns southbound onto Fairview there is a driveway there also. Mr. Patterson
responded that is also a right in/right out. Mr. Loveless believed it was similar
to making the turn and having to stop real quick because someone is trying to
turn into the driveway. Mr. John thought the distance was about 125 feet.
Mayor Hindman asked about the length of the driveway. Mr.
Dudark replied that it was 750 feet. Mayor Hindman inquired if there was a limit
for driveway lengths like there is for cul-de-sac lengths. Mr. Dudark said there
is no driveway limit. Mr. Loveless questioned whether having a turn around for
fire apparatus is a requirement for private driveways. Mr. Patterson said it
was not.
Mayor Hindman agreed the intersection is dangerous, but was
not sure the danger has to do with the distance. He said the speed limit is pretty
regularly ignored and one of the dangers is to make a left turn coming from the
south.
Mr. John noted that this property is already zoned PUD. He
said R-1 PUD was never single family residential and that was the problem, it
just indicated a density of six or less dwellings per acre. He said this was
already zoned to allow for five or six dwellings per acre, so there could have
been a total of 25 to 30 units. Mr. John acknowledged that access to the streets
was eliminated which changed the rights to the property, but the question is
not the zoning, but how to effectively use the tract. In regard to traffic, Mr.
John reported that there are some 45,000 cars traveling on Providence that he
has to deal with to exit from his neighborhood. He said there are six driveways
directly onto Providence Road, and these driveways are within 10 to 15 feet of
each other. Mr. John stated this is not great, but we cannot all have perfect
situations.
Mr. Loveless said the problem is not Katy Lane, the driveway
or the neighborhood, but the driver behavior on Forum. He believed the question
is whether or not a driveway placed 80 some feet away from the curb at Forum
will significantly add to the risk at this intersection. He said the last time
Mr. Kanago came to the Council they identified two problems with his configuration:
the stem lot and the proximity of the driveway to Forum Boulevard. Now Mr. Kanago
has come back having addressed both issues to the best of his ability. He agreed
with Mr. John in that the development would be significantly lower than what
would be permitted even with the R-1 PUD as it was before. Mr. Loveless maintained
that if the neighborhood is willing to accept the development of one home with
the driveway placement where it is, he was hard pressed to see that the difference
between having one home and two homes is a significant additional risk factor.
Mr. Coffman asked about home business restrictions. Mr. Dudark
replied it would be same as any other R-1 lot. Mr. Coffman inquired if there
was an idea of what might happen to the tree coverage. Mr. Patterson responded
that the applicant would have to obtain a land disturbance permit which would
be reviewed by staff prior to construction. He said by ordinance, only 25% of
what would be defined as a climax forest would have to be preserved.
Mr. Janku asked if there was sufficient existing right-of-way
along this stretch of Forum Boulevard for a deceleration lane. Mr. Patterson
indicated Mr. Kanago will be giving the additional right-of-way which will accommodate
a full four lane section even with a center turn lane. He thought it is recognized
there is a need for improvements on Forum, south of Chapel Hill, regardless of
this project. If approved, Mr. Janku asked that the pedway be set far enough
back so as not to be affected by any future road project. Mr. Patterson said
that had been considered in their layout. He commented that if the City participates
in the pedway, we would have to do the contracting and be paid by the developer.
The City cannot pay the developer to put in a wider than five foot pedway. Staff
would have to follow the public improvement process. Mr. Janku remarked that
there is no doubt about the safety issues in this area. He noted the City will
have to consider improvements to alleviate the situation, regardless of whether
or not this property is developed with one or two dwellings. Although, acquiring
the right-of-way would be helpful toward that end.
Mayor Hindman agreed that the intersection needed careful
attention.
Mr. Hutton also concurred and said he could not see how the
driveway would make the traffic situation in this area any more dangerous.
B60-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B61-03Granting a variance to Section
25-48 of the Subdivision Regulations regarding sidewalk construction
along the south side of Thompson Road, adjacent to Lot 58 of Garden City
Subdivision, Plat 9.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Dudark said the variance request is for a waiver along
Thompson Road, an unimproved street with open ditches. Staff believed the criteria
they looked at seemed to argue in favor of the variance. He noted there are no
other sidewalks on Thompson Road, no schools or other pedestrian generators in
the vicinity. Mr. Dudark remarked there are also some extenuating costs associated
with the construction due to the utilities and so forth. The applicant will construct
a sidewalk on the internal street.
If a sidewalk were to be built, Mr. Hutton asked where it
would be located in reference to the right-of-way. Mr. Dudark reported that additional
right-of-way had been dedicated when the subdivision was platted. He said it
is wider with the frontage, but with the lack of a curb and the open ditch, it
is difficult to determine where the walk should be installed. He thought it could
be built behind the ditch towards the house. Mr. Hutton thought it would be impossible
to locate the driveway in such a manner that it would not have to be torn out
when the street is improved. Mr. Dudark concurred. It was ascertained there are
no immediate plans to improve Thompson Road. Mr. Hutton noted that approval of
the variance request would not preclude the ability for the City to tax bill
the sidewalk later.
B61-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON.
Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B69-03Approving funds for emergency
repair to Boiler #6 at the Municipal Power Plant.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that $360,000 will need to be transferred
into an account in order to repair Boiler #6.
Mr. Janku asked where the funds would be appropriated from.
Mr. Malon replied they would be coming from the unappropriated fund balance.
Mr. Janku pointed out that this is an excellent example of why the City maintains
reserve funds.
B69-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B72-03Amending the capital projects
portion of the FY 2003 Annual Budget to change an electric utility project
from "Underground Feeder to McBaine" to "Backup Generators for McBaine."
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Malon explained the $1.3 million project to replace an
underground cable that provides backup for reliability to the McBaine Water Plant.
After seeking proposals, staff found that for substantially less money they could
purchase two 2,000 KW generators. He explained the advantages to the generators.
Mr. Malon indicated that if the transmission system in town were to go down,
or if there was a larger area blackout, both feeds would be lost. However, staff
is recommending the purchase of black start generators which would be able to
bring the plant back online. As a result, Mr. Malon said the reliability to the
plant would be far better with the generators located near McBaine rather than
repairing the two feeder lines. Staff suggests changing the project amount to
$700,000.
Mr. Hutton asked if the generators could be used as backup
for the City. Mr. Malon said they would be used in case of a shortage and as
regular peaking units for the utility. Even though the generators will be located
in McBaine, they will still be able to relieve 4 KW of load off the system.
B72-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

CONSENT AGENDA
The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions
were read by the Clerk.

B53-03Amending Chapter 16 of the City
Code relating to false identification.B56-03Approving the final plat of Cambridge
Place Subdivision, Block 3.B62-03Vacation drainage easements located
within Oakland Hill Subdivision.B64-03Designating the City as recipient
for FTA and MoDOT transit grants.B66-03Accepting a deed of dedication;
authorizing payment of differential costs; approving the engineer's final
report for water main serving Vanderveen Crossing, Plat 8.B67-03Accepting a deed of dedication;
authorizing payment of differential costs; approving the engineer's final
report for water main serving Smithton Ridge, Plat 2.B68-03Accepting conveyances for utility
purposes.B71-03Confirming the contract of Sterling
Excavation, Inc. for construction of a water main along the south side of
Brown School Road from Highway 763 to Clearview Road.B73-03Appropriating Water and Electric
Revenue Bond funds.R42-03Setting a public hearing: construction
of the Downtown Improvement Project.R43-03Setting a public hearing: voluntary
annexation of property located on the south side of Vawter School Road; approximately
1,750 feet east of Scott Boulevard.R44-03Setting a public hearing: 2002
CDBG and HOME Performance Report.R45-03Setting a public hearing: construction
of the MC-6 Trunk Sewer Extension.R46-03Setting a public hearing: street
and sidewalk construction on Donnelly Avenue.R47-03Setting a public hearing: storm
drainage improvements to the Paris Road and Ann Street area.R48-03Authorizing an agreement with
the Columbia School District for 2002 CDBG funds to provide on-site instruction
for the "Columbia Builds Youth" Program.

The bills were given third reading and the resolutions
were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN,
CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared
enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:

NEW BUSINESSR49-03Authorizing a grant agreement
with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources for the construction of
a trail underpass beneath Providence and Stewart Roads for the MKT Trail.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Hood commented that staff learned last week that the Department
of Natural Resources had approved their application for the $75,253 grant to
construct the underpass. The total project is estimated at $150,507 with the
City's match coming from the 1/4 cent sales tax monies set aside for greenbelt
and trail improvements. This resolution will authorize the City Manager to sign
the grant agreement.
The vote on R49-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN,
HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:

R50-03Authorizing demolition of a
dilapidated structure at 812 Charles Street.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Patterson explained that this property was investigated
as the result of a Council inquiry a little more than a year ago. Staff has gone
through the process of inspecting the property and obtaining administrative search
warrants in order to access the interior of such. A list of violations were found
and attempts were made to get the problems corrected. In November an administrative
hearing was held and it was determined that the building was dangerous, unsafe
as well as a public nuisance. Mr. Patterson reported that the property owner
has not made any repairs or moved forward with its demolition. This resolution
would authorize staff to proceed with the demolition of the building through
the City's bid process. The cost will then be tax billed as a lien against the
property.
Mr. Hutton commented it is unfortunate that it gets to the
point where a house has to be torn down. He noted there are other houses around
town in worse shape than this one that are currently occupied. Mr. Hutton saw
no alternative as far as the City is concerned. Mr. Patterson agreed with this
assessment and reported that the Planning staff has tried to work with the property
owner to get it rehabilitated.
He said the owner has been notified and given time frames
for obtaining permits and extensions, and they have failed to meet the deadlines.
If the property owner was to come in prior to the City actually contracting the
demolition, which will take several weeks, Mr. Patterson indicated staff would
stop the demolition action if there was some assurance the property would be
brought into compliance. Mr. Hutton suggested proceeding with the suggested Council
action.
The vote on R50-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN,
HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:

The following bills were introduced by the Mayor unless
otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:

B74-03Voluntary annexation of property
located on the west side of State Route 763, south of Brown School Road;
establishing permanent zoning.B75-03Rezoning property located on
the west side of Ballenger Lane, approximately 150 feet south of Timber Lane
from A-1 to R-1.B76-03Amending Chapter 29 of the Code
relating to the Urban Conservation Overlay Zoning District.B77-03Establishing an Urban Conservation
Overlay Zoning District within the East Campus Neighborhood.B78-03Abrogating the final plat of
Lake of the Woods South, Plat 2; approving the final plat of Lake of the
Woods South, Plat 4.B79-03Approving the final plat of Auburn
Hills, Plat 4.B80-03Amending Chapter 14 of the Code
relating to speed restrictions on Route AC (Grindstone Parkway).B81-03Authorizing an amendment to the
agreement with R.W. Beck, Inc. for assistance in City negotiations for power
purchases and power transmission services; appropriating funds.B82-03 Accepting easements for water main purposes.B83-03Authorizing construction of the
Downtown Improvement Project.

(B)FY 03 Percent for Art Projects.
Ms. Hunter explained that there are several projects that
have been designated that are not underway yet. She expected at least one will
get going this year. Other than that, the group did not see any significant projects
to designate at this time.
Mr. Janku agreed there are certain projects that do not need
an art component, but wondered if there would be a way to keep the percent for
art funds from these projects in the program to help with things like Artists
in the Schools and perhaps the maintenance of other projects. He was fearful
of losing some of the state support that has been available. Mr. Beck thought
that could be done as long as it is associated with Water and Light funds in
this case because it would be out of an enterprise fund.
Mr. Janku made a motion that the recommendation be accepted.
The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C)Percent for Art at the City/County
Health Department.
Ms. Hunter commented on Hugh Merrill's very collaborative
and community-based approach. She felt that was what appealed to both the Committee
and the Commission. She reported that he has been in Columbia six times since
mid-January and during that time he has met with the schools and been an artist
in residence. He has also met with the Board of Health, the Commission on Cultural
Affairs, the Standing Committee, County officials, and met twice with Health
Department staff to obtain input on his project for the new Health facility.
Ms. Hunter reported that as a result of those meetings, Mr. Merrill proposes
a program of art work rather than a single work and a single site. The sense
from both the Commission and the Committee was that they were really pleased
to see he is wanting to address so much of the facility.
Mr. Hutton asked how the applications are sought. Ms. Hunter
explained their approach has been to select the artist, not the design from the
beginning, so the artist can be integrated into the design team and propose a
work or a series of work that is truly site specific. The first step is to call
for applications, then finalists are selected and interviewed, and the last step
is to select an artist based on their past work and their ability to implement
large community oriented projects. Mr. Hutton asked if Mr. Merrill is a local
artist. Ms. Hunter replied that he is from Kansas City. Mr. Hutton questioned
whether the Standing Committee on Public Art makes a recommendation to the Commission
on approval of the actual design. Ms. Hunter said that was correct. Mr. Hutton
noted that the last art component mentioned polysilk banners hanging from the
rafters. He wondered if there was going to be exposed rafters in the building.
Ms. Hunter responded there would be exposed rafters.
Mr. Janku made the motion that they accept the recommendation
made by the Cultural Affairs Commission. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman
and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(D)Major Roadway Plan Amendment Process.
Mr. Loveless thanked the staff for the report, but felt it
would be more appropriate to wait on any action until it is determined what the
Council decides to do with Russell Park.
Mr. Janku suggested the Council be supplied with traffic volume
information before deciding whether or not Cunningham Road should be extended.

(E)Energy & Environment Commission
Report.
Mr. Hutton made the motion that staff be directed to bring
back an ordinance adopting the proposed changes in #1 on the list. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Janku.
There was a discussion about the request for 12 hours of staff
time per month. Mr. John suggested that when a commission asks the Council if
they can study something, that they also ask at that time for allocation of staff
time if they feel it is necessary. Mr. Beck commented that is the procedure being
currently followed.
The motion made by Mr. Hutton, seconded by Mr. Janku, was
approved unanimously by voice vote.

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
None.

COMMENTS BY COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC
Mr. Coffman commented that the Council heard a presentation
at their last work session involving the public access channel. He said a dedicated
group of people are trying to bring it back to Columbia. Mr. Coffman noted City
ordinances require cable companies to provide access channels for public education
and government use. He pointed out the channels for education and government,
but nothing has been dedicated just for public access. He stated that fixed studio
facilities are required as well as a certain number of things from the cable
franchise regarding facilities, equipment, and necessary personnel to assist
with it. Mr. Coffman reported that the cable companies have not been expected
to do this for a long time, but said there has been a lot of effort to try to
make it happen. He thought it was time for the City Council to facilitate the
work that is going on between the individuals who would like to bring this public
access channel to life again.
Mr. Coffman made the motion that the City send a letter to
the two cable franchises pointing out what their obligations are under the City
Code and asking them to respond to us within a certain time frame about how they
are going to comply with their obligations now that there is a demand for them.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.
Mr. Loveless asked if Mr. Coffman would accept a friendly
amendment that would direct that the two cable companies be asked to cooperatively
provide one such facility. Mr. Coffman was not sure how easy that would be, but
he thought the group would like to work out of one location if that would be
possible. He accepted that as an amendment -- that the City urge the cable companies
to look into that possibility. Mayor Hindman seconded this amendment.
Mr. John felt the letters should be strongly worded in that
the cable companies are in default of their franchise agreement and that they
have 90 days to come up with a plan to upgrade, and then give them a length of
time, between 90 and 120 days, to implement that plan. It should also say that
they may work together. Mr. Coffman said he would accept that.
The motion made by Mr. Coffman, seconded by Mr. Janku, amended
by Mr. Loveless and seconded by Mayor Hindman, including Mr. John's suggestion
on wording, was approved unanimously by voice vote.

Regarding the swimming issue brought up at the meeting
with the School Board, Mr. Janku asked staff to look into what might be done
to help with the issue of the Fourth grade swimming lessons.

Mr. Janku made a motion that staff report back on what
might be done on the percent for arts in terms of using funding from projects
that would otherwise qualify in order to maintain the program. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Hutton made the motion that staff report back on
interest charges set on tax bills, perhaps tying it to the prime rate where
it floats with the interest rate on the market. The motion was seconded by
Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Loveless said he had been asked to have a right turn
only investigated at westbound Kentucky at evening commute time (4:30-5:30
p.m.). He said people trying to turn left onto Providence Road stack up on
Kentucky to Maryland Avenue.
Mr. Loveless made the motion that staff report back on the
above issue. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by
voice vote.

Mr. Loveless spoke about Council discussions at a work
session in reference to setting up a standing committee on trails and parks
between the Planning Department, Parks and Recreation and Public Works. He
asked what the Council needed to do to implement the committee. Mr. Beck
said it could be done administratively.

Mr. Loveless made the motion that a deceleration lane
or a free right turn lane be investigated at the intersection of Forum and
Katy. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman.
Mayor Hindman said he would like to see the motion broadened
to include a study on the entire intersection. He said there are also issues
in making a left turn at Katy off of northbound Forum.
The motion made by Mr. Loveless, seconded and broadened by
Mayor Hindman, was approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. John reported that he had some people calling about
the deferred tax bills on sewer projects. He said if taps are not being put
on land that someone wants to sell, the City's process is blocking their
sale. The sale of the lot, if there is no platting, rezoning, or taps being
asked for, should not trigger the deferral. Mr. John noted this is the policy
on undeveloped lots. Mr. Hutton agreed that the sale should not trigger the
deferral because a buyer may want to sit on it for a few years before doing
anything with the property.

Also in reference to sewers, Mr. John said there is property
on Route K being annexed into the City and the property owner wants to connect
to the City sewer. However, in order to bring sewer to that property, the
line would have to cross land outside the City. Mr. John suggested a policy
similar to how water lines are handled (green lining) wherein the City can
charge the property owner for their share of the line once they tap into
it.
Mr. John made a motion that staff be directed to prepare a
policy per his suggestion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved
unanimously by voice vote.

Karl Skala, 5201 Gasconade, Chair of the Energy and Environment
Commission, clarified language from the Commission's report the Council discussed
earlier.